“Therapeutic cloning” is shorthand for somatic cell nuclear transfer. Essentially, it involves removing the nucleus from an ovum, and replacing it with the nucleus of another somatic cell (ie, a normal non-reproductive cell). The cells form a blastocyst (a ball of cells and a very early stage embryo). The benefits which might derive from this technology include possibly producing organs and cells to replace damaged ones (so that organ transplants and the like are not necessary). The hope is that it may also help people such as diabetics (with damaged pancreatic cells) and quadriplegics (with damaged spinal nerve cells). It seems that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the benefits and detriments of this technology.

Archbishop Pell called upon Catholic Members of Parliament not to vote in favour of the Bill. But the controversy arose when he also said, “It is a serious moral matter and Catholic politicians who vote for this legislation must realise that their voting has consequences for their place in the life of the Church.” The Archbishop was suggesting that perhaps those politicians who voted for the Bill should be denied communion.

As this article by Paul Collins outlines, there was history behind this call. During the 2004 US Presidential elections, a minority of US Archbishops had called for communion to be denied to Catholic Democrats who supported abortion or same-sex marriage.

It seems to me that Archbishop Pell’s statement was foolish. Of course His Eminence is entitled to express his view on therapeutic cloning, and to suggest what response he thinks the scriptures demand. But, to my mind, he is not entitled to threaten elected Members of Parliament with religious sanctions if they refuse to vote in the way that he recommends. It is bullying.

There is not an easy answer to whether therapeutic cloning is an ethical according to Christian principles. It is impossible to say when life begins and when consciousness begins. Personally, I do not think a bundle of cells can be categorised as “life as we know it”, but I can see that the line is hard to draw. How big does the bundle of cells have to get before I would think that a foetus was living? And what of the fact that a small bundle of cells with no consciousness or pain could potentially alleviate the suffering of some living people with full consciousness, and suffering great pain and discomfort? It’s a difficult question. The important thing is that Members of Parliament be free to vote according to their consciences, not just taking into account religion, but also the interests of their constituents. In the end, Members did just that. Some devout Catholics voted for the Bill, some voted against. And this is how it should be.

Mixing religion and state in the way that Archbishop Pell did brings a risk that those who are not of a particular religion may feel alienated. In this present day and age, we live in societies which are multicultural and diverse. Members of Parliament are supposed to be representative of their constituents, who may be of many faiths and many backgrounds. Religion may be part of what leads a Member to vote in a particular way, but the interest of constituents should also be paramount. That is what democracy is about.

As someone who is not religious, I am comfortable with a person discussing the ethical implications of a particular piece of legislation in the light of his or her faith. I respect that. But I am not comfortable with someone voting in a particular way simply because a leader of his or her faith says that the member might be punished. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I resent such behaviour. Did I vote for the leader of that faith? No. I voted for the Member, and as such, I expect him or her to exercise independent judgment, rather than speak for another organisation with which I have no affiliation. I don’t care what the religion is.

If I were a Catholic, I probably would have voted for the Bill out of sheer bloody-mindedness…maybe there’s a reason why I am not religious…I have difficulty following orders. 😉
In any case, Archbishop Pell’s comments do not seem to be in line with paragraph 28(a) of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2006 Papal Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est(“God Is Love”). His Holiness has stated the following in relation to the separation of Church and State:

The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves: “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?”. Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere. The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God’s standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.

The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

It seems to me that this provides a good balance. We should not cut religion out of public life entirely. It has important spiritual and ethical insights which we should consider when weighing up a particular course of action. But unelected religious figures should not try to force elected representatives to follow their direction. It acheives no good for anybody: it makes non-religious people feel alienated, it gives an impression that a particular Church or creed is trying to bully Parliament, and it undermines the very nature of representative democracy.

I have discovered this interesting blog by one Damaskinos (or should I say, it discovered me – the blogosphere really is an amazing place). It has some pertinent and learned comments on the latest furore involving the Pope’s speech. As Damaskinos notes, if you check the actual text of the speech, you will see that the “controversial” portion was taken totally out of context. As he further comments, the speech is not about Islam at all, but about the relationship between reason and faith, and the Hellenistic aspects of Christianity. The Pope refers glancingly to Manuel II Paleologus’ discussion with an unnamed Islamic scholar that forced conversion or conversion through violence must be against the will of God because it is against reason. To the Byzantine Christian Paleologus, this seemed self-evident, but to some radical strands of Islam at that time, it was not.

I am not a Catholic, but it seems to me that many people need to exercise more reason when it comes to this speech! If one wants to find out what Benedict XVI thinks about Islam and extremism, His Holiness gave an address to Muslim representatives in Cologne last year for the 20th World Youth Day.

One of the most intelligent Islamic responses I have read is by Waleed Aly of the Islamic Council of Victoria. Aly argues that the Pope’s speech was imprudent but certainly not designed to be offensive.

Like Aly, I wonder what the Islamic scholar’s response to Paleologus’ comment would be? I, too, am sure that the Islamic scholar did not threaten to kill Paleologus. The translation used by the Pope was in French, by Adel Theodore Khoury. I have tried to find an English translation of the dialogue between Paleologus and the Islamic scholar to find out what the scholar’s response was, but there does not seem to be one.

The quotation applies only to a minority of MuslimsAn edition of Byzantine sources in French, which appeared in 1966, is the cause of rage all around the world. An interview with emeritus theologian Adel-Theodore Khoury, whose book the Pope cited in his controversial Regensburg lecture.

Professor Khoury, what kind of day did you have yesterday?

The media called all day. Television was here. I’ve never experienced anything like this before.

Did you ever expect that your book would cause such an uproar?

An edition of Byzantine sources in French that appeared in 1966? Please.

Can you tell us something about the context of the quotation?

The Emperor and the Persion scholar met in a Muslim military camp outside Constantinople. There in an open atmosphere and highly polemically, they discussed each other’s religion. Both sides presented critical formulations to the other side, neither spared the other. The Pope did not use this quotation, however, to say something about Islam. That was not his theme at all. He used it only as a bridge to his next thoughts. The crucial sentence appears somewhat later: not to act reasonably is against God’s nature. He was concerned about the question of God’s will. That is moreover also a significant topic of discussion in Islamic theology.

You are a scholar of Islam. Do you believe that this quotation correctly characterized Islam?

Once again: that was not what the Pope was talking about in this lecture. Otherwise, one would have to add a few more remarks, because the quotation does not present the thought of the Koran precisely. It is not about conversion by the sword, but rather about the conquest and rule by the sword with simultaneous religious tolerance, at least for religions of the Book. If the Pope had been concerned about Islam, he would have had to point out entirely different streams of thought, which also demonstrate the reasonableness of God’s actions. Furthermore, you can find passages in the Koran where conversion by argument and just action is valued.

How do you explain the great rage in the Muslim world?

I see it in the context of the great tensions of the present day. Every one is so sensitive that misunderstandings arise. Many wanted from the Pope some words of differentiation, a categorization, an: “I, Benedict XVI, do not see Islam in this way.”

Would you have advised the Pope to make such a comment?

I might have. He could have clarified that he was referring only to a radical minority of Muslim, the Islamists prepared for violence. That is how the Turkish Hurriyet [Islamic scholar] understood it, and I believe, correctly: Emperor Manuel’s statement only applies to a minority of Muslims today.

[emphasis and explanation in italics added]

So Khoury says that the Islamic scholar with whom Paleologus was speaking understood that Paleologus was only criticizing a radical minority of Muslims for acting violently and unreasonably. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. I still want to work out a translation of the original dialogue, though. It’s my empiricist, rational mind!

In any case, this has been an interesting experience. I have discovered various Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox Christian websites, as well as various medieval text sources to try to find out more about the historical background. Before this, I certainly did not realise that the Vatican put texts online or that the Pope has an online fan club.

This whole business reminds me of a fight I had with my Dad once when I was a teenager. It all started when Dad made a cross-sounding comment about something I had done. “You’re angry,” I observed.

“I’m not angry!” Dad shouted in response. Of course, being a smart aleck kid, I couldn’t resist pointing out that he had just proved my point…you can guess that the fight just escalated from there. I hope that this particular argument doesn’t follow suit, and reason prevails. I’m sure a prayer or two for calm wouldn’t hurt either!